Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

The 73% claim is limited to "international terrorism", so the report's authors aren't so much lying about that detail as they are deliberately limiting their analysis to the type of terrorism that supports their preferred flavor of fear-mongering. It would be like if I only looked at "international" gang activity and found that it involved a bunch of Mexicans and Salvadorans. The POTUS, on the other hand, just left out that whole "international" detail when gushing about the results making his tweet a lie.

The 73% claim is limited to "international terrorism", so the report's authors aren't so much lying about that detail as they are deliberately limiting their analysis to the type of terrorism that supports their preferred flavor of fear-mongering. It would be like if I only looked at "international" gang activity and found that it involved a bunch of Mexicans and Salvadorans. The POTUS, on the other hand, just left out that whole "international" detail when gushing about the results making his tweet a lie.

Yes, international is the key detail. It is a lie by omission and purposeful misinformation.

__________________All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

The fact that it's talking about "international" terrorism is certainly one aspect of the administration's claims that don't stand up to scrutiny. I'd say, though, that it's commonplace for governments to release data in ways that push their own agendas - from omitting key points, to keep commissioning reports until one says what they want it to say.

It seems to me, though, that it's worse to claim that the data is based on DHS analysis, when the DHS did not perform the analysis and does not collect or analyse the kind of data that is being claimed of them. From the article:

Quote:

Career professional analysts at DHS communicated to the Justice Department that the data sought for the report simply did not exist within their department. DHS, multiple sources said, does not track or correlate international terrorism data by citizenship or country of origin, and have warned the Trump administration that doing so risks a misleading portrait of both terrorism and immigration.

It's claimed to be a DHS analysis, done by DHS analysts, using DHS data, yet the DHS wasn't consulted at all. They had nothing to do with it whatsoever.

He meant to say Torn. I will give him that. I think the thing is focusing on the lie not the slight misspeak. Everyone does that now and then.

I read that and thought "Who is this 'Tom' character?"
Damn Arial Font...

Originally Posted by Armitage72

I just realized... we're dealing with a twisted real life version of Chance the Gardener/Chauncey Gardiner, with arrogance replacing Chance's easy-going innocence. There's even the obsessive TV watching.

I made that connection several months ago -- glad to see it's seconded.

__________________Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.

The fact that it's talking about "international" terrorism is certainly one aspect of the administration's claims that don't stand up to scrutiny. I'd say, though, that it's commonplace for governments to release data in ways that push their own agendas - from omitting key points, to keep commissioning reports until one says what they want it to say.

It seems to me, though, that it's worse to claim that the data is based on DHS analysis, when the DHS did not perform the analysis and does not collect or analyse the kind of data that is being claimed of them. From the article:

It's claimed to be a DHS analysis, done by DHS analysts, using DHS data, yet the DHS wasn't consulted at all. They had nothing to do with it whatsoever.

Forget lies of omission, that's straight-up lying.

Well it just shows their incompetence. A proper scaremonger - Alex Jones, for example - would have claimed that the Deep State within DHS was refusing to track the national origins of international terrorists in order to promote their globalist agenda so Sessions had to have his own people do the analysis. Golden opportunity just squandered.
As an aside, I'm absolutely baffled that DHS doesn't analyze pretty much every possible trend involving terrorists. I don't favor using such data to promote xenophobia or anything but if a bunch of terrorists had anything in common I'd expect it to be examined.

As an aside, I'm absolutely baffled that DHS doesn't analyze pretty much every possible trend involving terrorists. I don't favor using such data to promote xenophobia or anything but if a bunch of terrorists had anything in common I'd expect it to be examined.

I wouldn't dream of trying to claim any insight into why they don't - they're in possession of much more data than I am, and have tired and tested far more methodologies than my zero - but I can see a danger in finding correlations and assigning them meaning. Correlation does not imply causation, and with something as important as this it could be very dangerous to assume that it does.

This recorded message was set up on the White House comment phone line, which accepts calls from members of the public.

Callers to the White House comment line at the weekend were informed that Democrats were to blame [for the government shutdown]. The recorded message says calls cannot be answered because Democrats are holding government funding "hostage".

"Unfortunately, we cannot answer your call today because Congressional Democrats are holding government funding - including funding for our troops and other national security priorities - hostage to an unrelated immigration debate," the recording says.

"Due to this obstruction, the government is shut down."

and this:

Quote:

The 30-second ad opens with images of a recent courtroom outburst by Luis Bracamontes, a twice-deported undocumented immigrant accused of killing two California deputies in 2014. It then cuts between footage of President Donald Trump, people who are purported to be undocumented immigrants, and Democratic lawmakers. The ad implies that Democrats are to blame for any bad actors: ďNow Democrats who stand in our way will be complicit in every murder committed by illegal immigrants,Ē the adís narrator says during the second half of the video.

Madness.

__________________Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.

The Bracamontes ad is essentially the professional version of the type of messaging I see from the fellows on the The_Donald subreddit daily. It's almost exactly like those are types of folks setting the direction for the Republican party these days.

I saw a comment on an article a day or two ago where someone opined that, even though Trump didn't use the word "*********" to describe African countries, it was a genius move for him to have done so because Liberals have now objected to that description of those countries, so they can now not have any objection to people being deported there. I've not seen such weird thinking since, well, since logger last posted.

The fact that it's talking about "international" terrorism is certainly one aspect of the administration's claims that don't stand up to scrutiny. I'd say, though, that it's commonplace for governments to release data in ways that push their own agendas - from omitting key points, to keep commissioning reports until one says what they want it to say.

It seems to me, though, that it's worse to claim that the data is based on DHS analysis, when the DHS did not perform the analysis and does not collect or analyse the kind of data that is being claimed of them. From the article:

It's claimed to be a DHS analysis, done by DHS analysts, using DHS data, yet the DHS wasn't consulted at all. They had nothing to do with it whatsoever.

Hey, maybe Donnie Johnny got the cracker-jack team who finished with their non-findings on the non-results of the non-existent massive number of illegal voters and they came up with the numbers for him? The best people.

__________________Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.

Do you understand that she's a former Lt. Colonel who lost both her legs in combat in Iraq? That is a helluva qualification to discuss military affairs.

Getting injured in combat is not a qualification to discuss military affairs. Combat injuries do not impart knowledge of recruitment and retention, training and doctrine, procurement and supply, etc. They don't make anyone an expert, or even minimally competent, in matters of strategic priority, force strength and composition, or national security posture. By themselves, they don't even give much insight into the administration of veteran's affairs.

As for rank being a qualification? She might have been a Lieutenant Colonel, but Donald Trump is Commander in Chief.

Getting injured in combat is not a qualification to discuss military affairs. Combat injuries do not impart knowledge of recruitment and retention, training and doctrine, procurement and supply, etc. They don't make anyone an expert, or even minimally competent, in matters of strategic priority, force strength and composition, or national security posture. By themselves, they don't even give much insight into the administration of veteran's affairs.

As for rank being a qualification? She might have been a Lieutenant Colonel, but Donald Trump is Commander in Chief.

And no one likes pilots who get shot down, they are as bad as ones who get captured.

Getting injured in combat is not a qualification to discuss military affairs. Combat injuries do not impart knowledge of recruitment and retention, training and doctrine, procurement and supply, etc. They don't make anyone an expert, or even minimally competent, in matters of strategic priority, force strength and composition, or national security posture. By themselves, they don't even give much insight into the administration of veteran's affairs.

As for rank being a qualification? She might have been a Lieutenant Colonel, but Donald Trump is Commander in Chief.

What training in matters of Military affairs as he had? Where did he serve?

__________________
"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."

Nothing about being female or liberal or a democrat disqualifies her as a military lecturer. Not even the combination of all three disqualifies her. As far as I know, nothing disqualifies her. Try again.

Getting injured in combat is not a qualification to discuss military affairs. Combat injuries do not impart knowledge of recruitment and retention, training and doctrine, procurement and supply, etc. They don't make anyone an expert, or even minimally competent, in matters of strategic priority, force strength and composition, or national security posture. By themselves, they don't even give much insight into the administration of veteran's affairs.

As for rank being a qualification? She might have been a Lieutenant Colonel, but Donald Trump is Commander in Chief.

I wonder if congresspersons have access to that knowledge though. Maybe she should run.

There's been a bit of news recently about naval officers who got promoted to high rank, who have now been made to resign, and face criminal charges, due to their actions as military officers. Promotion alone does not always signify qualification or fitness for duty.

Getting injured in combat is not a qualification to discuss military affairs. Combat injuries do not impart knowledge of recruitment and retention, training and doctrine, procurement and supply, etc. They don't make anyone an expert, or even minimally competent, in matters of strategic priority, force strength and composition, or national security posture. By themselves, they don't even give much insight into the administration of veteran's affairs.

As for rank being a qualification? She might have been a Lieutenant Colonel, but Donald Trump is Commander in Chief.

Well, if getting elected is a sufficient qualification, then that's all she has to do, isn't it.

I'm sure they do. Feel free to make an argument for her qualifications based on that knowledge. If you can show that she has that knowledge, whether from her access as a congressperson or from some other source, I won't even disagree with you.

The argument we're currently examining is that getting injured in combat supposedly provides special insight into military affairs in general.

There's been a bit of news recently about naval officers who got promoted to high rank, who have now been made to resign, and face criminal charges, due to their actions as military officers. Promotion alone does not always signify qualification or fitness for duty.

and you have any information that this applies to the Congresswoman in question?
Because otherwise your post is utterly irrelevant.

__________________Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.

I'm sure they do. Feel free to make an argument for her qualifications based on that knowledge. If you can show that she has that knowledge, whether from her access as a congressperson or from some other source, I won't even disagree with you.

The argument we're currently examining is that getting injured in combat supposedly provides special insight into military affairs in general.

Don't be absurd. You know as well as I do that any argument I make, if shown to be correct, will only result in your moving the goalposts.

I'm sure they do. Feel free to make an argument for her qualifications based on that knowledge. If you can show that she has that knowledge, whether from her access as a congressperson or from some other source, I won't even disagree with you.

The argument we're currently examining is that getting injured in combat supposedly provides special insight into military affairs in general.

Originally Posted by theprestige

If that's the qualification, then she and Trump are equally qualified. But her claim is that Trump is less qualified than her.

Duckwork also has a B.A. in political science and an M.A. in international affairs from George Washington University, and she graduated from the Army Officers' Reserve Training Corp. So yes, she has infinitely more insight than a draft-dodging failed real estate tycoon and former game show host.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.